3 ms·

You can follow the Sagan Standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard) "Extraordinary claims require ext

You can follow the Sagan Standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard) "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

whiddershins 4y ago
Unfortunately we aren’t so great at evaluating what an extraordinary claim is.
- jaredwiener 4y ago
  This is sort of why journalism is an actual profession. Editors do this, or at least are supposed to. Listening to everything everyone says can have its upsides, but filtering out noise is not one of them.
  - whiddershins 4y ago
    Thats ... why on earth would I think any of the people involved in journalism are better at this than I am? That's not remotely their job description.
timr 4y ago
Definitely, but I put this in the "listen to all sides and think for yourself" bucket, which is (sadly) not something most people are willing to do. If we could just get people who aren't informed to recognize that they're not informed and not have an opinion, that would be a huge win for civil discourse.
- chowells 4y ago
  I don't have time to listen to 1000 dumb ideas per day. I have a life to live. Also, I don't want my brain to get infected with whatever got Joe Rogan. I'm fine only caring about news after it's mainstream knowledge. Or even never; most news isn't worth the time it takes to consume it.
  - timr 4y ago
    > Also, I don't want my brain to get infected with whatever got Joe Rogan. If your brain is so fragile that it can't listen to some guy on a podcast without being "infected", then you're gonna have a hard time. Again, I'm not suggesting blind faith in dumb ideas. I'm not suggesting that you have to be an expert on anything. I'm suggesting that you have the will to say "I am not fully informed" when you don't know the answer.
    - pixl97 4y ago
      You already believe in hundreds of bad ideas and so do I. Feeding your brain bullshit reinforces bullshit output. On top of that the only thing most of us can say about almost everything under your rules would answered with 'I am not fully informed', shit, humanity isn't fully informed on anything.
      - timr 4y ago
        > On top of that the only thing most of us can say about almost everything under your rules would answered with 'I am not fully informed', shit, humanity isn't fully informed on anything. Yes. Exactly. I'm calling for more modesty, and less political vitriol driven by a fictional, exaggerated sense of certainty. (Also, reinforcing that ideas cannot hurt you, which is an odd mental pathology that has become distressingly common as of late.)
    - chowells 4y ago
      [flagged]
- juve1996 4y ago
  There are an infinite number of sides. You can't possibly do it all in your lifetime. Eventually you have to trust someone with something.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > If we could just get people who aren't informed to recognize that they're not informed and not have an opinion, that would be a huge win for civil discourse. I agree, but I think this falls into the category of "we've tried literally nothing and we're all out of ideas". If someone is sitting on a pile of $, I think something quite effective (but oh, would it be controversial) could be built. > I'm suggesting that you have the will to say "I am not fully informed" when you don't know the answer. "The spirit (will) is willing (well, sometimes) but the flesh is weak". Free will, heuristics, and consciousness/reality are extremely complex topics. I believe very strongly that modern day people have this ability in similar quantities to the ability of people from 50 years ago to not be racist. It is innate, second nature, System 1, outside their control. From below: >> Eventually you have to trust someone with something. You have to. While this is not logically, physically, necessarily true, I think this is literally true for most people, as a consequence of the evolved nature of consciousness, combined with culturally-ingrained norms, one of which is whether philosophy was a part of the educational curriculum one was exposed to... And even then, how good one is at it, in fact (which is typically inaccessible, thus imagined/simulated). Another: >> To you, the danger is not knowing that there are, in fact, lizard people controlling the government. To me, the danger is in ending up spending my free time poring over fringe lizard-people Twitter. Also simulated. Sure, it's "just snark", "speaking colloquially", {excuse du jour}, but I wonder if the mind atrophies with lack of use like muscles do.
mistermann 4y ago
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A problem: this is a razor that is useful for approximating what one believes to be true, it is not proper, strict epistemology. Also: it only yields belief, not truth, because it doesn't even try for truth - rather, it advises against doing that. Would be interesting to see what Carl would say in this context, as I presume he meant it in the context of science/physics, not metaphysics. I have arguments now and then with people on Carl Sagan videos on tiktok, and it is eye opening how many science fans are utterly incompetent when it comes to epistemology and logic. With just a tiny bit of abstraction (removing the object level specifics of the claim), they are indistinguishable from religious fundamentalists in their confident incorrectness / epistemic-unsoundness.
- nradov 4y ago
  I've seen the phrase "trust the science" a lot lately, which indicates the someone fundamentally misunderstands what science actually is.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    An extremely interesting and complex discussion could be had about the merits of that advice. In a perfect world, it would be fine, since science is highly trustworthy. Unfortunately, the world we live in is far from perfect, making it far less easy to determine how optimal the approach is. And ironically, you would think that science minded people would understand and appreciate these complexities and their legitimate importance, however in my experience they tend to be the ones most averse to them.

You can follow the Sagan Standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard) "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

whiddershins 4y ago

Unfortunately we aren’t so great at evaluating what an extraordinary claim is.

jaredwiener 4y ago
This is sort of why journalism is an actual profession. Editors do this, or at least are supposed to. Listening to everything everyone says can have its upsides, but filtering out noise is not one of them.
- whiddershins 4y ago
  Thats ... why on earth would I think any of the people involved in journalism are better at this than I am? That's not remotely their job description.

timr 4y ago

Definitely, but I put this in the "listen to all sides and think for yourself" bucket, which is (sadly) not something most people are willing to do. If we could just get people who aren't informed to recognize that they're not informed and not have an opinion, that would be a huge win for civil discourse.

chowells 4y ago
I don't have time to listen to 1000 dumb ideas per day. I have a life to live. Also, I don't want my brain to get infected with whatever got Joe Rogan. I'm fine only caring about news after it's mainstream knowledge. Or even never; most news isn't worth the time it takes to consume it.
- timr 4y ago
  > Also, I don't want my brain to get infected with whatever got Joe Rogan. If your brain is so fragile that it can't listen to some guy on a podcast without being "infected", then you're gonna have a hard time. Again, I'm not suggesting blind faith in dumb ideas. I'm not suggesting that you have to be an expert on anything. I'm suggesting that you have the will to say "I am not fully informed" when you don't know the answer.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    You already believe in hundreds of bad ideas and so do I. Feeding your brain bullshit reinforces bullshit output. On top of that the only thing most of us can say about almost everything under your rules would answered with 'I am not fully informed', shit, humanity isn't fully informed on anything.
    - timr 4y ago
      > On top of that the only thing most of us can say about almost everything under your rules would answered with 'I am not fully informed', shit, humanity isn't fully informed on anything. Yes. Exactly. I'm calling for more modesty, and less political vitriol driven by a fictional, exaggerated sense of certainty. (Also, reinforcing that ideas cannot hurt you, which is an odd mental pathology that has become distressingly common as of late.)
  - chowells 4y ago
    [flagged]
juve1996 4y ago
There are an infinite number of sides. You can't possibly do it all in your lifetime. Eventually you have to trust someone with something.
mistermann 4y ago
> If we could just get people who aren't informed to recognize that they're not informed and not have an opinion, that would be a huge win for civil discourse. I agree, but I think this falls into the category of "we've tried literally nothing and we're all out of ideas". If someone is sitting on a pile of $, I think something quite effective (but oh, would it be controversial) could be built. > I'm suggesting that you have the will to say "I am not fully informed" when you don't know the answer. "The spirit (will) is willing (well, sometimes) but the flesh is weak". Free will, heuristics, and consciousness/reality are extremely complex topics. I believe very strongly that modern day people have this ability in similar quantities to the ability of people from 50 years ago to not be racist. It is innate, second nature, System 1, outside their control. From below: >> Eventually you have to trust someone with something. You have to. While this is not logically, physically, necessarily true, I think this is literally true for most people, as a consequence of the evolved nature of consciousness, combined with culturally-ingrained norms, one of which is whether philosophy was a part of the educational curriculum one was exposed to... And even then, how good one is at it, in fact (which is typically inaccessible, thus imagined/simulated). Another: >> To you, the danger is not knowing that there are, in fact, lizard people controlling the government. To me, the danger is in ending up spending my free time poring over fringe lizard-people Twitter. Also simulated. Sure, it's "just snark", "speaking colloquially", {excuse du jour}, but I wonder if the mind atrophies with lack of use like muscles do.

mistermann 4y ago

> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A problem: this is a razor that is useful for approximating what one believes to be true, it is not proper, strict epistemology. Also: it only yields belief, not truth, because it doesn't even try for truth - rather, it advises against doing that. Would be interesting to see what Carl would say in this context, as I presume he meant it in the context of science/physics, not metaphysics. I have arguments now and then with people on Carl Sagan videos on tiktok, and it is eye opening how many science fans are utterly incompetent when it comes to epistemology and logic. With just a tiny bit of abstraction (removing the object level specifics of the claim), they are indistinguishable from religious fundamentalists in their confident incorrectness / epistemic-unsoundness.

nradov 4y ago
I've seen the phrase "trust the science" a lot lately, which indicates the someone fundamentally misunderstands what science actually is.
- mistermann 4y ago
  An extremely interesting and complex discussion could be had about the merits of that advice. In a perfect world, it would be fine, since science is highly trustworthy. Unfortunately, the world we live in is far from perfect, making it far less easy to determine how optimal the approach is. And ironically, you would think that science minded people would understand and appreciate these complexities and their legitimate importance, however in my experience they tend to be the ones most averse to them.